ise_ers_search_internaluser

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing about pagination behavior, sorting semantics, read-only safety, whether filter is required, what fields are searchable, or the meaning of the 'size' default of 100. For a search/filter tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no waste. However, it is so terse it barely adds value - this is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness. The deployment parameter description in the schema is notably more useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and only 20% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain filter syntax, pagination limits, or how search differs from list. The agent would need to look at the generic ise_ers_search tool or documentation to understand this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'deployment' has a description). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. The 'filter' parameter - central to the tool's purpose - has no explanation of ERS filter expression syntax. Parametric guidance is almost entirely absent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Search/filter Internal Users with ERS filter expressions' which identifies the verb (search/filter) and resource (Internal Users). However, it duplicates the tool name (ise_ers_search_internaluser) nearly verbatim and does not distinguish from the sibling ise_ers_list_internaluser or the generic ise_ers_search tool, making its specific value unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use search vs list, no mention of ERS filter expression syntax, and no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations. It says filter expressions are used but doesn't explain how they work, leaving the agent to guess the filter format and when this tool is the right choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.